Santee Cooper suspends plans for Kingsburg coal plant

PINOPOLIS — Santee Cooper said the economy and uncertainty over the cost of possible cap-and-trade legislation are two reasons its board has voted to suspend permitting for a proposed coal-fired power generation facility in Kingsburg.

The board of the state-owned utility took its vote Monday, when a committee recommended the suspension of permitting for the $1.25 billion facility for these reasons, as well as reduced power load requirements.

The power load reduction would result from another board vote to allow Central Electric Power Cooperative Inc. to remove 1,000 megawatts from Santee Cooper’s system over seven years beginning in 2013.

“Any of those three items would cause us to cancel (the facility). ... We’re going to put it on hold and sit tight,” board Chairman O.L. Thompson said after the meeting.

Central Electric is negotiating with Duke Energy to buy power for five of its cooperatives in upstate South Carolina, said Dukes Scott, director of the S.C. Office of Regulatory Staff.

These negotiations don’t affect cooperatives in the Pee Dee, he said.

Tim Pettit, spokesman for Duke Energy Carolinas, said Duke Energy has supplied energy to Central Electric Power Cooperative in the past.

Santee Cooper President and CEO Lonnie Carter said that if the circumstances continue as expected, he thinks the project will ultimately be canceled.

“We’re not in the business of building power plants,” he said after the meeting. “We’re in the business of providing low-cost, reliable power.”

Carter said the proposed facility had “overwhelming support” in the community.

Mike Couick, president and CEO of the Electric Cooperatives of South Carolina Inc., said he appreciates the opportunity to use existing resources to keep rates down for his association’s 20 member cooperatives and Santee Cooper’s direct customers.

“You’re avoiding the additional expense of new plant equipment,” he said.

Opponents of the proposed Kingsburg plant said they applauded Santee Cooper’s board for their decision.

“I think it moves us toward a clean-energy future,” said Peggy Brown of Florence, who represented the League of Women Voters and state Sierra Club. “I’m very grateful for Santee Cooper’s commitment to their energy-efficiency programs.”

The board also voted Monday to extend its energy-efficiency loan program from $5.5 million to $10 million.

“Obviously, I want the ultimate decision to be that the coal plant will never be built and that (Santee Cooper) will focus on” energy efficiency and invest in renewable energy, said Nancy Cave, North Coast Office director for the Coastal Conservation League.

John Ramsburgh, climate and energy director for Conservation Voters of South Carolina, said the board’s vote “reflects a national trend” against coal and toward clean, efficient energy.

“We look forward to passing strong federal climate legislation that will create jobs and promote an energy-independent South Carolina,” he said.

Also Monday, Santee Cooper’s board approved an overall average 3.4 percent base rate increase beginning Nov. 1 but postponed a second rate adjustment for 2010.

The utility cites rising operational costs and facilities maintenance as reasons for the increase, but said it will further evaluate the amount and timing of the second adjustment.

The proposed 600-megawatt facility in Kingsburg, dubbed the Pee Dee Energy Campus, was slated to become operational in 2012 and would be located on a 2,709-acre tract along the Great Pee Dee River.

Santee Cooper had maintained the energy that would be produced by the plant would be necessary to prevent power shortages in South Carolina within the next five years.

The company had pledged to make the Pee Dee Energy Campus the cleanest of its kind, Santee Cooper spokeswoman Laura Varn said, and said the investment in cleaner technology comes with a price tag.

As for the Kingsburg plant, an appeal was filed April 13 asking the courts to rescind the air permits the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control issued to Santee Cooper in February for it.

The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) filed the appeal on behalf of the the S.C. Coastal Conservation League, Environmental Defense Fund, the League of Women Voters of South Carolina, the S.C. Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club.

Blan Holman, an attorney for the SELC, said the appeal had been the next step in the process of shutting down the plans for the coal-fired facility.

Carter said Monday that the clock isn’t running on any pending permits while the matter is in litigation.

The SELC said DHEC used bad data when its gave Santee Cooper air quality permits for the plant and that burning coal will create large amounts of air pollution that will cause health problems and damage property.

A majority of S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control Board members voted in February against remanding the original air permit for the proposed coal-fired plant. The board members, despite misgivings, decided the permit was issued properly.

Gov. Mark Sanford joined the opposition to the Pee Dee Energy Campus prior to the decision of the DHEC board members.

His announcement was followed by a series of press releases agreeing with his stance on the issue. The S.C. Department of Natural Resources also sent a strongly worded letter to DHEC officials to recommend a remand of the air permit.

The permit gave Santee Cooper permission to move forward with the process in an attempt to build two 600-megawatt boilers on the campus.

The Army Corps of Engineers’ Environmental Impact Statement, which will determine if Santee Cooper can continue making progress in the permitting process, was expected sometime this summer.

Carter said Santee Cooper has asked the Corps, as part of the suspension of permitting, not to submit the statement for public comment.

— Morning News staff contributed to this report.

PEE DEE ENERGY CAMPUS TIMELINE

Below is a timeline of the events surrounding Santee Cooper’s Pee Dee Energy Campus, a 600-megawatt coal-fired generation facility located on a 2,709-acre tract in Kingsburg scheduled to become operational sometime after 2012.

• April 21, 2006: Santee Cooper announces plans for a 600 megawatt pulverized coal facility with an estimated cost of $984.
• May 22, 2006: The proposed completion date is cut by two years — putting the expected completion date in 2012 — and adding $14 million to the price tag for the plant.
• Oct. 7, 2006: Santee Cooper begins submitting permits in the hopes of clearing the land of the proposed site in Kingsburg.
• Oct. 24, 2006: Pamplico Mayor Gene Gainey announces his stand in favor of the coal plant. Also, Santee Cooper announces plans to begin construction in March 2007.
• March 20, 2007: The first of the groups opposing the coal plant begin to surface. Southern Environmental Law Center and the Coastal Conservation League began making their opinions against the proposed plant known.
• March 21, 2007: Santee Cooper extols the need for more power in South Carolina, saying the company will be 385 megawatts short of the amount needed to power homes in the region by 2012, if the plant isn’t built.
• April 30, 2007: Santee Cooper announces its intention to use a more in-depth version of the Environmental Impact Statement as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This process will delay the construction of the coal plant by 14 to 18 months.
• May 2, 2007: Florence County Council announces its support for proposed plant.
• July 12, 2007: The S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control hosts an informal public meeting to answer questions about the proposed facility.
• July 17, 2007: Columbia-based environmental consulting firm, LPA Group, Inc, is selected to perform an evaluation of the environmental impact statement.
• Sept. 17, 2007: DHEC issues the draft of the Prevention Significant Deterioration despite many requests not to by conservationists and some residents.
• Sept. 27, 2007: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hosts two public scoping meetings to hear the concerns of residents affected by the proposed plant.
• Oct. 25, 2007: Members of the Coastal Conservation League, the S.C. Wildlife Federation, the Southern Environmental Law Center, the S.C. Sierra Club, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and residents of the Pamplico and Kingsburg areas gather at the S.C. Statehouse to protest the proposed plant.
• Oct. 31, 2007: Health care professionals in the Pee Dee gather to protest the plant, citing a variety of health issues as a reason for DHEC to deny the draft air permits.
• Nov. 8, 2007: DHEC hosts a public hearing on the draft air permits for the Santee Cooper facility to better address the concerns of the residents in the area Gainey presents a petition signed by more than 1,000 people in favor of the plant. Mike King, a local environmentalist and resident of the Kingsburg area, also presents a petition signed by more 400 residents of the area who are against the plant.
• Dec. 13, 2007: Francis Marion University professors conduct an in-depth look into the economic benefits of the proposed coal plant, determining a total of $900 million in economic output and 9,300 jobs will be brought to the region as a result of the project, based on information provided by Santee Cooper.
• Jan. 22, 2008: Formation of the Pee Dee Supporters for Progress is announced in support of the plant.
• Jan. 23, 2008: Conservation groups release 136-page analysis of coal plants, detailing potentially harmful effects.
• Jan. 29, 2008: Attorney’s General from eight states urge DHEC to reconsider the draft air permits.
• Feb. 8, 2008: The federal court rules the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by removing coal and oil plants from the list of hazardous air pollution sources.
• March 3, 2008: Santee Cooper CEO Lonnie Carter defends the need for the coal-fired facility to the members of the Florence Rotary Club.
• March 19, 2008: Santee Cooper announces plans to move forward with the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), as required by the federal court’s ruling in February.
• March 27, 2008: Santee Cooper announces plan to increase the cost of the proposed coal plant from $998 million to $1.25 billion, citing growing costs of gasoline and building materials.
• April 11, 2008: Eastern Carolina Development Corp. and the Coastal Conservation League join forces to contract an outside data firm to review the economic data of the coal plant. The data from the report, using public information, shows markedly different results than the one conducted by FMU professors in December. According to the new report, only 228 jobs would come to the region as a result of the plant.
• July 1, 2008: Santee Cooper CEO Lonnie Carter announces plans to submit the final Maximum Achievable Control Technology analysis to the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control during a press conference at Dozier M. Munn Pamplico Public Library. Carter also outlines an updated generation plan, which included a mercury education initiative, as well as the hiring of a new member to the power plant’s team, Dr. Gail Charnley, a toxicology specialist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The mercury education initiative, entitled “The Real Story on Mercury,” is a comprehensive effort to provide the public with accurate information on an often misinterpreted subject.
• July 28, 2008: Opponents of the proposed Pee Dee Energy Campus gather at Wilson High School to discuss concerns about the plant during a meeting organized by local community activists.
• Sept. 22: Residents from across Darlington County attended a meeting organized by local community activists at Mayo High School for Math, Science & Technology in Darlington to learn more about the Pee Dee Energy Campus.
• Oct. 23: Hundreds of people pack the Hannah-Pamplico gymnasium to make their voices heard about the Pee Dee Energy Campus during DHEC’s first formal public hearing on the matter.
• Dec. 10: The S.C. Small Business Chamber of Commerce and the S.C. Wildlife Federation meet in Columbia to ask the Santee Cooper Advisory Board to take a closer look at plans for the utility’s Pee Dee Energy Campus and consider the opinions of community members when making their decision. The advisory board consists of the governor, secretary of state, treasurer, attorney general and comptroller general for South Carolina.
• Dec. 16: DHEC announces its approval of the air quality permit for the proposed Pee Dee Energy Campus.
• Dec. 31: A coalition of environmental groups join to appeal DHEC’s decision to approve the air permit for the Pee Dee Energy Campus.
• Jan. 16: National conservation leaders gather with local environmentalists to discuss the validity of the Pee Dee Energy Campus.
• Feb. 11: On the eve of the DHEC’s review conference of the Pee Dee Energy Campus, Gov. Mark Sanford announces his opposition to the proposed facility.
• Feb. 12: A majority of DHEC Board members vote against remanding the original air permit for the Pee Dee Energy Campus. The majority of the board members said although they believe the permit was issued legally, their decision doesn’t mean they like the idea of a coal-fired power plant.
• April 8: Local environmentalists decide on their own to investigate the mercury content in the Great Pee Dee River to prove the proposed Santee Cooper coal-fired power plant to be a bad decision by cutting volunteers’ hair to be tested for elevated mercury levels.
• April 13: The Southern Environmental Law Center files an appeal on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, the League of Women Voters of South Carolina, the S.C. Coastal Conservation League, the S.C. Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club asking the courts to rescind the air permits DHEC issued to Santee Cooper in February for the Pee Dee Energy Campus.
• April 22: Opponents of the Pee Dee Energy Campus gather in Columbia to announce the findings of a new study regarding rate increases for Santee Cooper customers, which they say supports their arguments.
• May 7: A summarization report is released by the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice, two national environmental watchdog groups, showing the Environmental Protection Agency researched the safety of coal-fired facilities, but never released the findings of the study.
• July 27: Santee Cooper’s board meets in Myrtle Beach to get public feedback on a proposed rate increase, while a group of local environmental activists gathered to protest both the increase and the utility’s plans for the Pee Dee Energy Campus.
• Aug. 24: Santee Cooper’s board votes to suspend permitting for the Pee Dee Energy Campus.